Agenda - 08-03-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

433.' ' 4 Planning Board Minutes July 20, 1981 Page 2 2. Page 4 guarantee should read guarantee. Cleary moved approval of the July 7, 1981 minutes with the corrections. Lansford seconded. Motion carried unanurcusly. Agenda Item #3 Elizabeth Pegg Latta Subdivision. Cannity addressed some general concerns. He cited that the Commissioners had changed the regulations to allow for adminis- trative approval of minor subdivision by the staff. In the case of the Latta Subdivision the developers felt that it should be approved administratively. However, staff felt it should be considered as a major subdivision. He added that staff can refer any subdivision to the Board. Kirk gave a presentation on the Elizabeth Pegg Latta Subdivision. Steve Yuhaszaddressed the Board in objection to consideration of the subdivision as a major. He objected on the basis of the second part of the definition of subdivision.on page 4 in the Subdivision Regulations. He added that lots over 10 acres should not be involved given the definition. His second objection con- . cerned the fee differentials between minor and major subdivisions. Alois Callermin added that they wiled to know how to advise their clients in the fUture, if the Board set a precedent in this case. Geoffrey Gledhill addressed the issue of whether a single 10 acre lot takes the entire proposal out of the jurisdiction of the Subdivision Regulations. He explained that the definition in question refers to a subdivision where every tract is more than 10 acres. If a single tract is less than 10 acres than all lots are subject to Subdivision Regulations. The intent is to prevent uncontrolled development through large lot subdivision. The definition is from the enabling Legislation of the general statutes. Gordon requested clarification from Gledhill on the following issues: 1) regardless of history all lots are considered, even if one is greater than 10 acres; and 2) are the regulations applied in a given subdivision at a single point in time or are they applied as a process overtime. Gledhill responded that that is the biggest problem and that the Staff approach was the most sensible to assure a good planning process. He cited III-C-2 in the Subdivision Regulations. Gordon clarified that all land divisions since the Subdivision Regulations were put into affect should be considered. Gledhill noted that this did not include those tracts which were exceptions.